Federer and Laver would be up there in joint first - hard to compare eras,so I can't say who is better of the 2.

After that Sampras, Borg and Nadal are all very close. I think Nadal is sneaking ahead of Borg and will soon be ahead of Sampras.

Borg didn't have a career slam but he did win on grass and clay when the differences were extreme. Sampras has 14 majors but no RG (no final even). If Nadal wins 2 more slams he's probably ahead of both Sampras and Borg,.

Agree. Although not sure who I'd put first between Federer and Laver. But those two followed by Sampras and Borg. If/when Rafa gets another slam or two I would move him above Borg. To consider moving him above Pete, I think he would need another 4, preferably not all at the FO.

Agree. Although not sure who I'd put first between Federer and Laver. But those two followed by Sampras and Borg. If/when Rafa gets another slam or two I would move him above Borg. To consider moving him above Pete, I think he would need another 4, preferably not all at the FO.

Click to expand...

This is the same question was ask when Roger won his 14 slams back in 2009. Now that he won 17 slams, add a few more WTF and broke the 286 weeks at #1 and some of you are still not sure if he's ahead of Laver ?

Roger have accomplished since 2009 up to now is a dream career for 99.99% of the players on the tour and for sure he would make the HOF. Meanwhile Laver has gain nothing since he retire in the 70s.

1)Federer
2)Sampras
3)Borg
4)Laver
5)Nadal
My list for the moment..changes from year to year.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Funny when Nadal continue to win every year his ranking is moving upward at a rapid pace but for Fed it stay the same which doesn't get to move ahead of Laver(according to some fans, not to mention the old-timers in the former pro talk forum). Go figure.

This is the same question was ask when Roger won his 14 slams back in 2009. Now that he won 17 slams, add a few more WTF and broke the 286 weeks at #1 and some of you are still not sure if he's ahead of Laver ?

Roger have accomplished since 2009 up to now is a dream career for 99.99% of the players on the tour and for sure he would make the HOF. Meanwhile Laver has gain nothing since he retire in the 70s.

Click to expand...

VEry hard to compare, since Laver could not compete in grand slams during his prime 5/6 years (pros were not allowed to compete during this period). To put this in context, he won the calendar year grand slam as an amateur when he was 23/24, and then again as a pro when he was 30/31 (by then pros we allowed to compete). No way to know what Laver could have achieved if he could have played the slams in those 5/6 years in between. So for me Fed and Laver are joint GOATS and I can't pick one over the other.

Dominated two polar opposite surfaces, clay and grass, at Majors. Also showed great ability on indoor carpet, winning 22 titles, and hard court, where he reached the final of 3 of the 4 Majors he played on it. For comparative purposes, it took Federer and Nadal until their 11th Major on clay and hard respectively to win their first and Sampras never won on clay in 13 attempts. Plus, 5 consecutive years with a winning percentage over 90%. Personally, I have Borg over Sampras, who is the greatest fast court player of the Open era.

I don't agree with simply looking at Career Slam and number of Majors. The status of the Australian in the past is definitely of relevance. Perhaps people would have played it if they realised that number of Majors would become so important, by Sampras gunning for Emerson's record. I find it funny that people regarded Sampras as the best ever when he passed that record, when no one even considered Emerson a top-tier candidate. The likes of Borg, Connors and McEnroe knew that chasing that record should not matter, because the numbers of Laver, Rosewall and others were affected by the pro/amateur divide. By the 90's, this complex history of tennis was swept aside for the ease of number of Majors, which from a marketing point of view makes perfect sense.

Why are people including Laver, but not Rosewall and others, in these lists?

For me, in the Open era, I'd say.

1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Nadal
5. Lendl

So Nadal is the 4th greatest of the Open era for me at the moment and, of course, the greatest clay courter. In spite of being 3 Majors behind, I'd have Lendl closer to Nadal than most people. Considering he reached two finals on the old grass, his chances of completing the Career Slam on the new grass would be much higher. These are the types of things that make comparison between eras so difficult. He has the greater number of titles, more Major finals and an amazing record at the YEC. I haven't given it too much thought, but Connors would be #6 and I could see an argument for him above Lendl, due to his lack of participation in Australia and the French and his ridiculous longevity.

Steffi-singles Record 900–115 (88.7%)
Roger singles record 853–192 (81.63%)
(harder to show since roger has played 45 more matches)

Steffi played 17 Years
Roger is at 14 Years

so in 3 years he will need to win a Calendar Golden Slam (impossible now)
Win 5 more Slams (out of 13 more chances)
Win a Calendar Slam (with 3 more chances)
and be at #1 for another 90 weeks (that is 14 weeks shy of 2 years at #1)

Steffi-singles Record 900–115 (88.7%)
Roger singles record 853–192 (81.63%)
(harder to show since roger has played 45 more matches)

Steffi played 17 Years
Roger is at 14 Years

so in 3 years he will need to win a Calendar Golden Slam (impossible now)
Win 5 more Slams (out of 13 more chances)
Win a Calendar Slam (with 3 more chances)
and be at #1 for another 90 weeks (that is 14 weeks shy of 2 years at #1)

To knock off Fraulein Forehand

Click to expand...

She has a calendar Golden Slam, which is different and better than a career golden slam. Agassi, Nadal and Federer have career Golden Slams.

From those players I have seen play (much easier to do this than talk out of my rear about players I don't have much idea of), I would rate Federer as the best, Sampras a very very very close second and Nadal not too far behind. I give Nadal 2 more slams to equal Sampras. And if he gets to 3 or 4 more slams, I would put him on par with Federer, shut case and count myself lucky to have been born in this era.

I am sorry but if people are going to make up criteria for ranking tennis players this discussion will really go bonkers.

A Grand Slam tournament is the most difficult and prestigious prize on offer in pro tennis. How can you objectively decide to disregard it?

You may not like Nadal and Sampras but they exceed Borg's accomplishments and it's not a difficult arithmetic either.

PS: Rosewall was a factor in the Open era? This is news to me.

Click to expand...

I never claimed Rosewall was a factor in the Open era, though he did win 4 Majors and reach a further 4 finals in it. So clearly he was. But people are including Laver in their lists near the top. He only won 5 Majors in the Open era (and one further final), even if it did include the Grand Slam. Are people seriously putting Laver above Borg and Nadal in terms of the Open era? I assumed they were including achievements before the Open era, in which case the absence of the likes of Rosewall, Gonzales and others is noticeable.

I never claimed I was disregarding the Majors. Of course they are the most important tournaments in tennis. I said I felt that looking at just the number was simplistic. If we could just use the number then wouldn't this entire discussion be pretty pointless? I am trying to look at each person's case and comparing them. The Australian was not treated like an important event, and therefore not often played, by a lot of the top players until the mid-80's due to a number of factors. So I do think that factor is important. Are we to say that Johan Kriek (2 AOs, no other Major finals and career high rank of #7) and Brian Teacher (1 AO, only one other QF at Majors and career high rank of #7) are better than Andy Murray?

I loved watching Sampras play. His win over Agassi in his last ever match to tie the US Open record will always be a favourite memory of mine. Why would you assume that I rank them based on liking the player or not? It is simply my opinion on their achievements. Borg's achievements on a wide-range of surfaces puts him ahead of Sampras for me. Borg played the Australian only once at the age of 17, so really his weakest Major was the USO, where he reached 4 finals. Sampras only reached a single SF at the French and those shortcomings on clay help Borg edge ahead in my opinion.

I can, of course, understand the argument for Sampras ahead of Borg. 3 more Majors, far more weeks at #1 (though arguments on the ranking system in the early years are well documented) and more YECs. You asked the question of how people could place Borg ahead of Nadal. I put forward the argument for why I, and others, place Borg not just ahead of Nadal but Sampras also.

pretty good list ... my only problem with Nadal is that 7 out of his 11 slams were on clay. If I look at the quality of players, If we consider the fact that Borg retired when he was only 25 yo, he didn't want to play the AO, that he was able to dominate on both grass and clay (like nobody before or after him) etc ... I'd place him ahead of Sampras.

Tier 2 all-time, along with Borg, Sampras, Lendl, Agassi, Connors, and Budge (hard to rank them precisely, as there are arguments for and against all of them, but I guess Nadal, Sampras and Borg, in whatever order, should probably take the first three spots in this group, ie #6 to #8, as my tier 1 has five players). We'll know more when his career is over, of course, although tier 1 still seems pretty hard to reach from where he is now.

I'm still confused as to why people are ranking Laver up in the top 3 without Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden and others in the top 10. I can't make sense of it. They seem to be making Open era lists and just throwing Laver (5 Open Majors from 6 finals) near the top.

I'm still confused as to why people are ranking Laver up in the top 3 without Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden and others in the top 10. I can't make sense of it. They seem to be making Open era lists and just throwing Laver (5 Open Majors from 6 finals) near the top.

Click to expand...

Good point. I guess people are just throwing a bone to the pre-Open era dinosaurs.

I never claimed Rosewall was a factor in the Open era, though he did win 4 Majors and reach a further 4 finals in it. So clearly he was. But people are including Laver in their lists near the top. He only won 5 Majors in the Open era (and one further final), even if it did include the Grand Slam. Are people seriously putting Laver above Borg and Nadal in terms of the Open era? I assumed they were including achievements before the Open era, in which case the absence of the likes of Rosewall, Gonzales and others is noticeable.

I never claimed I was disregarding the Majors. Of course they are the most important tournaments in tennis. I said I felt that looking at just the number was simplistic. If we could just use the number then wouldn't this entire discussion be pretty pointless? I am trying to look at each person's case and comparing them. The Australian was not treated like an important event, and therefore not often played, by a lot of the top players until the mid-80's due to a number of factors. So I do think that factor is important. Are we to say that Johan Kriek (2 AOs, no other Major finals and career high rank of #7) and Brian Teacher (1 AO, only one other QF at Majors and career high rank of #7) are better than Andy Murray?

I loved watching Sampras play. His win over Agassi in his last ever match to tie the US Open record will always be a favourite memory of mine. Why would you assume that I rank them based on liking the player or not? It is simply my opinion on their achievements. Borg's achievements on a wide-range of surfaces puts him ahead of Sampras for me. Borg played the Australian only once at the age of 17, so really his weakest Major was the USO, where he reached 4 finals. Sampras only reached a single SF at the French and those shortcomings on clay help Borg edge ahead in my opinion.

I can, of course, understand the argument for Sampras ahead of Borg. 3 more Majors, far more weeks at #1 (though arguments on the ranking system in the early years are well documented) and more YECs. You asked the question of how people could place Borg ahead of Nadal. I put forward the argument for why I, and others, place Borg not just ahead of Nadal but Sampras also.

Click to expand...

Laver got the Slam. It's all he (or any pro player for that matter) needs to do be ranked among the very best in his sport. This ranks him higher than Borg for me. Nadal has 11 GS titles that include a career golden slam whereas Borg has a gaping whole in his resume with the absense of AO and USO titles. Yes the 3 consecutive FO-Wimbledon doubles is unprecedented and probably will never be done again. But it's not enough to put him over an accomplished all-rounder like Nadal (of course this is skewed by the change of surfaces but I have to be objective). Sampras has 14 Slam titles and I don't think it can be dubbed as simplistic to say 3 Slam titles is a large gap. Large enough to push almost every tennis player down the pecking order.

I like this discussion and have to (in this climate on tw) thank you for maintaining a proper level.

No way in hell is Nadal below Borg who didnt even win 2 of the 4 majors, and couldnt win the U.S Open even with it being on clay for a few years. Add to that Nadal clearly suprassing Borg on clay. I also agree Nadal will surpass Sampras in the future, he is already above Borg.

Rosewall is the most underrated player ever probably. He was a top 3 player in the World for about 20 years, and while his period of dominance wasnt as long as Laver or Gonzales, it was roughly as long as Federer (about 4 years).

I'm still confused as to why people are ranking Laver up in the top 3 without Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden and others in the top 10. I can't make sense of it. They seem to be making Open era lists and just throwing Laver (5 Open Majors from 6 finals) near the top.

Click to expand...

some do that just cause he won the Grand Slam twice so he's automatically some sort of a default placement in the 1st tier....Rosewall had a pimp career no doubt, a lot of pro and amateur majors won.
I place Fed and Laver as the two greatest based on acclamation, and the then 2nd tier of best ever has Rosewall, Gonzalez, Sampras, Tilden, Borg, Nadal in my opinion

Federer won slams 2003 to 2010 and 2012. Nadal was in the top 3 for seven (7) of the years when Federer won a grand slam. And since Nadal has been near the top, Federer has won 13 slams. If those 13 are worth so few, than how little must Nadal's 11 in that same time be worth? Fail.

I'd put Nadal slightly below Sampras, so 4th probably. Still could catch up to Sampras's slam count, though, if he keeps staying healthy for the clay season, where most of his points come.